Microsoft May Be Investigated By Attorneys General

Null Nihils writes "Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has announced that a group of state attorneys general will decide later this week whether to pursue legal action against Microsoft over allegations of anticompetitive conduct that were brought on by Google. From the article: 'Google has complained that Microsoft's new operating system puts it, and other rivals, at a disadvantage. Google said that Vista makes it harder for consumers to use non-Microsoft versions of a desktop search function, which enables users to search the contents of their hard drives. A group of state attorneys general including Connecticut and California is now determining how to react to the claims made by Google.'"

Comments

what's the bet that

[oliverthered]

If this manages to get through google will be dead in the water by the time anything's done about it.

Re:what's the bet that

[gkhan1]

I think you've summed up the issue pretty well. I like Google a hell of a lot more than Microsoft, but this complaint is utterly ridiculous. It shouldn't be brought to the courts. If it does, Microsoft will win. As they should.

Unfair standard?

[elrous0]

I hate to be a MS defender here (Linux Gods please forgive me) but isn't it a little unfair to ride MS's ass for security problems all the time and then also expect them to open up their kernal, file system, security, etc. to every damn third party developer out there? Should a third party developer have just as much access to Vista as MS themselves?

Re:Unfair standard?

[babbling]

It's not unfair because it is entirely possible to write libraries that are not riddled with security flaws. You are trying to relate two things that are almost completely unrelated.

Re:Unfair standard?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If MSFT is not competing in the applications arena and sells only the OS then it can say "I am locking up the kernel and you guys play by this rule". But MSFT is competing in the office, gaming, database, search, and email arenas. And it is using its monopoly in the OS arena to unfairly benefit its own application products.

What gives complaints against MSFT legitimacy is that it has 1. monopoly in the OS marke. 2. It has used its monopoly to unfairly undermine its competitors in other markers. MSFT can easily get out of all these restrictions and actions by breaking the company into two pieces. One is the OS company and the other is the applications company. And the OS company will give equal access to all vendors in the applications arena.

Please understand the issue is not the quantum of access given to the OS. It is the unequal access given to other vendors.

Re:Unfair standard?

[jt2377]

How about Mac? it bundle with all the apps that come free. why don't you cry about it?

Re:Unfair standard?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is true no one would buy a car without tires. Or even a radio. Would you let auto makers off the hook so easily if they tried to make it impossible to install a thirdparty tire or radio? Infact the auto makers did that and it took lots of legislative action in the 70s to open up the "connectors and specs" to level the playing field, (or so I understand from a slashdot post.)

Now how far should the automaker go? Should you be able to install a thirdparty glove box? A steering wheel? or a gear box and transmission? The automobile is quite tangible and most consumers are well informed and they vote with their dollars in these questions. If they make a car that will accept only Ford tires, the marketplace will shun it. It is possible the glove box (and possibly the windshield) was thirdparty add-on way back in 1910s. And eventually it got incorporated into the automobile.

But in the computer arena, the public is not well informed. It would take a generation of kids who grew up with computers all their life to distinguish between what is the "glove box" and what is a "tire" in a computer. At that point we might not need any legislative action. But right now, to preseve the endangered species of independent software developers and application developers we need some basic action from the courts/legislation.

Re:Unfair standard?

[ozmanjusri]

So, practically speaking, how is MS supposed to give third party developers "equal access" with so many possible combinations of applications?

Fully documeneted and open APIs. Documented and open protocols. Documented and open file formats. They're required by the terms of their prosecution in the European Union to provide this documentation and keep refusing. The US department of Justice has asked them to provide the protocols to potential competitors.

Microsoft has repeatedly refused to comply properly with these legal requirements. The answer to your question is simple. Microsoft should do what lawmakers have been telling them to do for years. Provide potential competitors with enough information to interoperate with the OS as effectively as MS themselves.

Re:Unfair standard?

[Score Whore]

There's no such thing as a "convicted monopolist". Microsoft was found to be in breach of anti-competitive business practices. Given that this is slashdot and we can't use piracy (for copyright violations) or theft (for copyright violations) or Linux (for the name of the OS), you're not going to be allowed to use stupid assed phrases like "convicted monopolists".

Until there is an explicit definition of what an OS is and what exactly is included and that definition becomes the rule of what OS vendors can include and 100% of OS vendors are under the gun to match that definition exactly, then Microsoft can do whatever the fuck they want with their OS. Google has billions of dollars, if they don't like Microsoft's OS then they can damn well make their own and stop trying to force MS to provide support for Google's business model and profit margin.

Re:Unfair standard?

[Red Flayer]

If they make a car that will accept only Ford tires, the marketplace will shun it.

Unless, of course, the marketplace is doiminated by Ford. That's the whole gist of the problem.

It has nothing to do with public education, it has to do with the inability of a market to operate more-or-less freely, due to domination of one sector by one firm (Microsoft, in this case).

I understand what you're getting at -- defining what is peripheral (like the tires) and defining what is intrinsic to the product (like the glovebox). This is not so cloudy for computers as you make it seem -- operating systems do not need to include a web browser (MS's ridiculous assertions aside), and thus they are peripheral to the OS. They also do not need to include search capabilities -- MS could easily release their search agent as an accessory, instead of bundled.

At any rate, discussing what is extrinsic/intrinsic to a Ford automobile has *zero* relevance to what we are discussing, since Ford does not have a de facto monopoly on cars sold in the US, which means that the market's ability to opt for a competitor's product does not translate to the computer issue.

Re:Unfair standard?

[Crimsonjade]

It depends on where your focus is. OpenBSD has its focus on security first and foremost. Could Microsoft had done the same? Probably, but I think it is too late now. Should we forgive Microsoft for all their past security flaws because they are making (somewhat) of an effort? I would say yes and lets move forward, except for the fact that we have recently seem some pretty ridiculous security holes. So no, it is not really an unfair standard.

Re:Unfair standard?

[aichpvee]

especially given customer and consumer expectations

If the customer expectations weren't so low they might be forced to fix some of underlying problems that put so many bugs in their software.

Re:Unfair standard?

[drinkypoo]

Please. If you think that writing a complex system (especially one requiring some serious backwards compatibility, such as Windows) of libraries is accomplished without any security flaws, you probably haven't written or worked with very many real-world applications.

This is true. So Microsoft should stop lying and claiming to always use proper bounds-checking string routines when they clearly do not, as they create so very many buffer overflows, and they should stop claiming that they have the most secure OS, et cetera.

Re:Which means...

[nomadic]

This can only mean: Microsoft is adhering to its deal with the DOJ and they have investigated the matter and find Google's complaint without merit - or - The DOJ is trying to keep the state Attorneys General from getting involved in what they regard as a Federal matter It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

-or more likely-
The anti-trust division of the DOJ is run by libertarian free-market zealots who have no problem disregarding the law to further their own ideology.

Wrong issue

[rlp]

I'd rather see the AG's go after Microsoft for their anti-Linux patent FUD. The DOJ is completely asleep at the wheel (or bought off) on this issue. Maybe the EU will do something about it.

Difference: monopoly

[Mr. Underbridge]

If Chrysler decided to design a car that worked better with specific parts, who would complain. If MS designs their OS so their desktop search works better, great. If Google really wants to be a competitor let them spend all that evil filthy lucre they've amassed and build thier own stinking OS that they can lock MS out of.

Did Chrysler increase their market share by 90% last night? If not, the difference between Chrysler and MS is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist with a very high marketshare of desktop computers while Chrysler is a small player in the US auto market. This means that MS is subject to laws and rules that, in general, Chrysler is not. One of them is leveraging their market share in one market (operating systems) into others (search tools, browsers, etc). If MS is using anticompetitive tactics to render Google's products less capable of working with MS's operating system, to MS's advantage, that could be illegal.

Note that if Chrysler made 95% of the cars on the road, and Chrysler intentionally restricted their cars so that they would only work with Chrysler-blessed stereos, that would be illegal as well.

Re:Difference: monopoly

[daeg]

But in this case there is nothing illegal about it. It's a file search! There are numerous ways to turn it off, both user-imitated and automated. Google Desktop's installer could simply disable it and replace it.

I like Google tools as much as the next guy, and generally distrust MS... but.. it's a file search. Searching files is something an operating system does.

I can only imagine Google's crying if MS had left their new queryable file system in place.

Is it any easier to replace Apple's search?

[Gilatrout]

My problem with this is not if it actually easier or not to replace Apples search, but the entire presumption that a company cannot put x feature into y product becuase it's hard for someone else. If MSFT wants to put in a search to be competative with APPL, then by all means they have that right, and they are IMO under no obligation to make it simple to replace. What they are obligated to do is allow 3rd parties to develop and install alternatives. The customer can then choose which implementation is better. This choice in no way requires that one implementation must not be coexist with the other.

Bullshit

[toby]

So you're a fan of security by obscurity?

Ever notice how the really secure systems (*BSD, Solaris, etc) have every line of code public?

PS. It's spelled "kernel".

Re:Bullshit

[KarmaMB84]

Most of the Unix systems were relatively secure even before anyone open sourced their implementations. Microsoft has simply made a LOT of trade offs to make their system "user friendly". I also suspect we'll find all the anti-trust business holding them back from ever fixing it for fear of inviting third parties to sue them.

Why is it

[toby]

That every antitrust story is tagged politics but never crime?

A curious clue to contemporary American thought patterns?

I don't understand the complaint

[the_humeister]

Should TCP/IP stack vendors also complain that Microsoft includes a TCP/IP stack in Vista? Yes there was a time when a TCP/IP stack was a separate product that had to be purchased, even on unix systems.

Lame

[MrCrassic]

I really hope that this case doesn't get taken to the heights of Microsoft's anti-trust suits did because it's really not worth it...

Mac OS X includes desktop-wide search functions. I am not sure as to how difficult they are to "turn off," but it comes with the OS to provide ease of use for the user instead of having to find third-party utilities to do the same job as Windows users of the past have had to.

Now, Microsoft decides to include desktop searching functions as well. If I am not mistaken, these functions can be turned off, but that does not matter. Google is then planning to sue Microsoft for unfair competition because their Desktop Search Application is no longer useful?

If Google's primary argument in this case is that the integrated desktop search is too difficult to turn off, they better have pretty good lawyesr that can establish a clear and persuasive definition of what it means to "turn off" something. I'm pretty sure that if Google truly wanted to, they could establish an option within their own program (or set a default option) to turn off the Windows searching mechanism. There are also plenty of instructions that could be written to turn off the searching ability. I could go on with this, but the point here is that this main argument is a weak one that will get them nowhere even before the gavel hits the desk.

Google has a ton of applications that are universally useful; why must they target something that MIcrosoft finally got right?

Google turning evil

[Bullfish]

Frankly, I don't blame MS for locking up the kernel. We all wanted that right? Security, remember that? At the same time as Google has grown it has shown all the earmarks of becoming what they said they wouldn't be, and it started with the desktop search. Now they are being accused of poor privacy protection, collaborating with censors...

I don't want google or yahoo or anyone else searching my hard drive.

We have seen this before

[Anon-Admin]

1) MS investigated by the AG's of several states.
2) MS taken to court by the states.
3) Federal government takes case away from states claiming federal jurisdiction. Then drops antitrust case due to pressure from executive branch.
4) MS Profits!

I guess we can drop the ??? on this one.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[illumin8]

If a kid didn't play fair with you, did you run and bitch to your parents every minute of the day, or did you eventually learn not to play with the kid.

What if the kid owned over 90% of all the toys in the playground and only let you play with the crappy blocks unless you were his friend?

RTFOAs

[durnurd]

(O: Other)

While the article posted doesn't necessarily make it entirely clear what Google is complaining about, I had the sneaking suspicion that it wasn't just that a search function existed in Vista, as there has always been. So take a look at some other articles if you really want to know what the complaint is about. I found this:

In a 50-page document Google submitted to the Court, the search provider contends that Vista's desktop search, which is separate from internet search, limits users abilities to run Google's desktop search instead. Basically, Google says Microsoft's new OS only permits users to search Microsoft compatible information, such as e-mail.

A Google spokesperson said in a statement that Microsoft Vista "violates the consent decree" and that its nearly impossible to turn off. "There is no visible way for users to choose an alternate search provider," the Google spokesman stated.

Where do you draw the line?

[qweqwe321]

At what point do you draw the line between "something that should be included in an OS" and "anti-competitive behavior"?

No

[sid0]

Am I correct in understanding that in Vista, the web-based msn search engine crawls your hard drive?
You are incorrect.

is it a build in search engine? (ie. daemon running on the local machine)
Yes, and it can easily be turned off. Google is being moronic here, crying for the sake of crying.

Re:Of all the things MS has bundled w/ windows

[DNeoMatrix]

I personally wouldn't run windows if it didn't come with I.E. - seriously - without it you can't even download firefox!